If you want to restore traditional marriage, start by restoring your vocabulary.
It’s no secret that liberals hold in contempt what they regard as the provincial nature of conservatives. And I certainly would love to buy liberals for what I think they’re worth and sell them for what they think they’re worth, to paraphrase the old retort. That said, a part of me is so frustrated with my traditionalist brethren that I could almost be persuaded that the left is, in some minute measure, correct. For the sagacity reflected in our ends is matched by the stupidity of our means. And the left is quite the opposite.
I have often mentioned the manipulation of language and cautioned that the side that defines the vocabulary of a debate wins the debate. And this principle is on full display in the marriage controversy.
The truth is that most of us, although well-intentioned, are complicit in paving the way for the victory of the anti-marriage hordes. Oh, how seamlessly the left has managed to weave its terminology into our lexicon. How thoughtlessly the same passes our lips.
I ask you: why do we utter the term “gay marriage” as if such an institution actually exists (the word “gay” itself is a euphemism in this context, and the reason should be obvious)? The word “marriage” came into usage in English late in the thirteenth century, and it has always pertained to the matrimonial union of a man and woman. So, homosexual marriage? It’s an oxymoron.
If it’s homosexual, it ain’t marriage.
This is why I referred to this attack upon marriage as “faux marriage” in a previous piece and why I will brand it simply “anti-marriage” here. To speak of “gay marriage,” whether positively or negatively, is to tacitly acknowledge its existence. This gives aid and comfort to the enemy.
But the language engineers’ influence cuts wide and deep. Why, I even heard a very prominent curmudgeon of a conservative commentator refer to marriage as “heterosexual marriage” on his nightly news and commentary program. Ah, what is the road to Hell paved with? If we have to specify heterosexual marriage, it implies that it is merely one side of a coin.
And if one side of a coin exists, so does the other.
I hasten to add that the anti-marriage set has no more moral authority to define the terms of the debate than they have to re-define marriage. And it matters not a whit whether you view marriage as an institution of God or of man. If the former, then it’s quite obvious that anything that lies beyond God’s definition of “marriage” is nothing of the sort. Of course, if marriage is merely a human invention, its definition is quite arbitrary. But then who shall define it? The majority, silent or not, or a minority, vocal and shrill or not? The truth is that the vast majority of Americans don’t subscribe to anti-marriage doctrine, and we’re under no obligation to sing its tune any more than its praises.
It’s really just a matter of who will be arguing from a position of strength. If we quite correctly and steadfastly deny the existence of anti-marriage, those who would disgorge it are left to argue why such an institution should exist. Once we accept the fiction that it does exist, however, we are left to argue why some “marriages” should be denied the legal status of others. Instead of forcing the anti-marriage crowd to explain why an age-old institution should now encompass a fashionable perversion, we now bear the burden of explaining why the rights bestowed by that institution should be offered to some who embrace it but not others. Of course, compelling arguments to this effect can still be presented, but we’ve lost half the battle before it has even begun. It’s the difference between denying your adversary a foothold in your territory and waiting to fight him at the gates of your capitol.
Most profound, though, is the effect on those weaned on this example of the newest of Newspeak. My childhood was spent from the mid-sixties to late seventies, and I was exposed to the lexicon of the left of the day. And it wasn’t until I grew older and acquired a cognizance of the importance of language that I awoke from the linguistic Matrix. Why did I accept words such as “underprivileged” or “disadvantaged” when my forebears would have conserved the syllables and simply said “poor?” Alas, though, most never take the red pill.
The term “gay marriage” and the concept associated with it is being burned into the psyches of the younger generations, causing them to accept anti-marriage as a reality. And if it exists, why shouldn’t it be recognized? If it’s a marriage, how can it be treated as something other?
The short answer, before we expound upon the social effects of such an idea or extol the virtues of the traditional family, is that it is not a marriage. And history vindicates us. While there have been many societies that have been quite accepting of homosexuality – from ancient Sparta to Rome to tribes in Papua New Guinea – there isn’t one I’m aware of that ever saw fit to conjure up a demon such as anti-marriage. Why accept the unprecedented as a presupposition?
The side that defines the vocabulary of a debate does win the debate. Referenda denying legal status to anti-marriage are positive legal measures, but they do little to alter this inexorable wave of social devolvement. The truth is that all our efforts and arguments will be for naught if we allow social engineers – in the guise of college professors, media talking heads and Hollywood Hell fodder – to guide our tongues. If you don’t want “gay marriage” to be recognized legally, don’t recognize it verbally.
So, if you want to restore marriage, start by restoring your vocabulary. “Gay Marriage” doesn’t exist. It never has and it never will. But a fiction can become an illusion when a big lie is repeated often enough.
sodomite pseudo-unions?
Be careful, Paul. I think that’s the NEA new slogan for the fall. Copyright infringement ‘n all…
The reason the lerm is linguistically acceptable is because marriage today is a legal, government-sanctioned mutual agreement. Does the author, who shows some talent for linguistics, dare to suggest that the meanings of words do not change over time, according to social customs and mores?
It is perfectly acceptable to talk about a ‘gay-marriage’, at least in a legal sense. In a moral and/or religious sense, well… I’ll others decide that for themselves.
Mr Duke’s position is very well taken, but I’d note that it isn’t simply adjectives in which the language has been co-opted.
Take the debate on abortion: when an unborn child is referred to as a “fetus,” though scientifically correct during many stages of prenatal development, the unborn child ceases to to be a child. When referred to by pronoun, as is frequently the case, too often the pronoun used is “it,” a pronoun referencing an inanimate object, rather than “he,” which refers to a living being. (I could even tolerate the repugnant “he or she,” though “he” is correct in all cases in which the sex of the person referred to is unknown.)
I’d like to euthenize liberals, or at least disenfranchise them of the right to breathe. What/ Did I say something politically incorrect?
Yes, marriage today is a government-sanctioned, mutual agreement. When was that not a fact in the United States? And at what point did the government determine that “marriage” described the union of any two people, regardless of their sex…or for that matter, a limitless number of people who could enter into “one marriage”?
I could extend the possible “unions”, but I won’t do that here.
Duke makes a valid point, IMO. Words very definitely matter. When we use the phrase “homosexual marriage”, we acknowledge that there IS such a thing. Better that we should describe it for what it is: A homosexual attack on marriage, for instance. There is no such entity as “gay marriage”.
Nope. If liberals like death so much, in the infernal spirit of “bipartisanship” and “moderation”, I’ll meet them half way. Liberals want to kill babies and old people. O.k., I’ll give them the killing part, in return for satisfying their thirst for blood, I say we kill tree-huggers, porn-stars, and anyone who ever attended a Madonna concert, but that’s my final offer…
So many social(ist) utopians act as though their fever dreams will blossom in a vacuum…that nothing outside the bounds of their particular fantsy will be affected. They see the evidence for that nostrum of the slippery slope and use another one, saying, ‘that can’t happen here’. If two men can “marry”, give me a good, bad, or indifferent reason why a pedophile can’t “marry” a busload of boyscouts, or Farmer Jones “marry” Bessie?
The same linguistic concept can be applied to “Homophobic” which does not
apply to most of us that it is used against. Phobic implies fear which does not exist in most of us any more than the fear of dog poo we encounter on the sidewalk. We may be disgusted by it, but we step around it and mutter a few expletives about those responsible for leaving the mess, but there is no fear. So what is the proper word for those of us who simply do not like Homos? How about Queer-Adverse?
Ivan…..how about HATEFUL BIGOT.
Christ would be ashamed of all of you. Did he not teach tolerance? Also, if you want to go after something that is truly harmful to the “institution” of marriage, try divorce.
Christ never taught tolerance. As if God would wink at evil. Of course, Good and Evil are foreign concepts to liberals. Christ taught we should not judge our neighbor’s heart. He may have repented after doing an unspeakable crime. Still, at all times, you are to judge behavior according to the 10 Commandments, The Messiah, and His Church. You are to admonish your brother in charity. Admonish again with 2 or 3 others in charity, further. If he does not hear you, pray, fast, and offer other sacrifices for his conversion. You are never to accept evil. Never ever. Hate is not the opposite of Love, Indifference is. We are our brother’s keeper. Shepherds who ommit good they should have done are damned. Be brave, and don’t lie to yourself.
Duke is against the phrase because of its reference to something that does not exist. Unfortunately, if this issue lost, it will exist. I don’t think there is harm in talking in terms that are generally understood by all. He does make an excelent point in who makes the call to change what marriage means? Certainly not God, and who on the human side has the authority?
In regards to one comment, divorce has not harmed marriage, because people still get married.
Regarding the word “homophobic”, I totally agree with Ivan. It’s about as silly as hearing black people jump on the word “racist” for anyone who disagrees with them.
Let’s get it straight. Heterosexuals who view the behaviour of active homosexuals as a perversion have a very valid, sensible reason for their beliefs. They see it as abnormal, as an aberration against the natural law. To describe their stance as phobic is totally false. This is a misnomer adopted by some homosexuals in order to paint those who disagree with their lifestyle as having no credibility.
Just as ridiculous and wrong-headed as those who cry “racism”. They have not honest means of supporting their positions so they have nothing left to resort to but these ludricous and transparent charges.
It’s well past time when we should ignore these false claims, see them for what they are, and challenge them, en masse, every time one of them throws this garbage out to the public.
Robert…..you said “In regards to one comment, divorce has not harmed marriage, because people still get married”…..following this logic you must conclude that there is no harm in letting Gays marry because people still get married.
Joseph…careful buddy…..you said “Of course, Good and Evil are foreign concepts to liberals.”……OF COURSE you realize Christ was as Liberal as they come. So you are saying Christ has no concept of good and evil. Stop with the labeling and generalizations based on your disdain for anything Liberal. You can not be a Christian and disagree with Liberal concepts at the same time.
Remember “Don’t condemn others, and God won’t condemn you” MATT 7.1
Now, all this religion is a moot point. To remain a democratic nation we can’t create laws based on any one religious belief. We are supposed to have religious freedom in this country. We are based on EQUALITY. To deny someone the right to pursue the same things as others is discrimination and not democratic.
If you want to live in a theocracy, move to the Middle East.
Joanne, you speak of homosexuality as an “…abberration against the natural law. Following this line of thought then we can say that birth defects and mental retardation are also aberrations against the natural law….they are abnormal. Do you then feel the same about the many thousands of people who fall in this category. When they fight for equality are they throwing garbage out to the public?
Also, how are the homosexuals “attacking” marriage? They are only wishing to be afforded the same rights as anyone else. Next you must say that the disabled should not marry because they are also an aberration against nature. Who is next? Where does the discrimination end…..it only leads to a fascist state. Is that what you would like?
I engage people on this website in order to surround myself in other points of view. It is a great way to learn and understand. Unfortunately, the majority of you are very scary, small minded individuals who have been blinded by ideology and no longer think for yourselves.
The message of the article is very important. Words have meaning and how language is used in a debate affects the outcome. Marriage, the union of man and woman in a public lifelong committment, preceeds the state. Govenrments recognize the reality that is “marriage.” by definition it cannnot be entereed into by members of the same sex.
The article is correct that we should not use terms created by those who wish to destroy marriage. As for those who claim that homosexuial behavior is benign, have we forgotten the AIDS epidemic. Had the government shuck down the bathhouses in the early days of the crisis, had the state directed policies to curtail dangerous and deadly behavior, perhaps millions of children would not now be dead.
No one wants to touch this hot potato. It is not politically correct. But the truth is, this whole attack on marriage and the family is borne from a deep seated hatred of Judeo-Christian morality and the Western Civilization that grew from it. They hate children: hence the attack on the unborn. They hate women; hence the desire to eradicate the complementary natures of men and women. They hate themselves; hence the destructive behavior. The truth is that they are to be pitied for they seek to find love and joy but will not look where it can be found in its fullness.
So we must be careful and not fall into the trap of using their language.
And we must articulate our message in clear and consice terms.
Language changes as the times change. The argument in this article isn't a very good one because of this fact. If you are going to stick to an archaic definition of marriage then you have to get rid of all the modern slang that has become part of the normal language. You can't pick and choose. Just like in the Old Testament. It may say homosexuality is an abomination, but it also say shellfish is too. Has anybody been protesting the eating of crab/lobster/shrimp? Are we making laws against it? No, of course not. However, to use the religious argument and not apply it to shellfish also is hypocritical and phony. The language issue is the same.
And will someone please tell me exactly how this is an ATTACK on marriage!!!
i dont see how it affects anyone else if two men or two woman decide to get married. if God creates evrone wouldnt he have CHOSEN for homosexuals to feel the way they do. I dont see hows its anyones buisness. After all if they love each other then i dont see an issue. If im wrong and God does have an issue with it then i suppose he will deal with that himself.
Matt, that you think God has predestined anyone shows your lack of understanding. To suppose any further insight in your opinion on the matter to have value would be silly.
Dear LyonBrave, please give me the Old Testament reference …about shellfish also being an abomination (as homosexuality is mentioned as…your post).